Yet another Presidential debate between candidate Romney and President Obama. At least this one was much more entertaining than the first. That part where Romney and Obama were toe-to-toe is great. And, start a fist fight (much to my disappointment), I still had a good time watching them try to bark over each other.
I suppose the debate proper can become much more interesting to observe when you look deeper than just what the two candidates are spewing. Originally, I argued that there isn't anything deeper. They're both either lying or misleading the audience in a performance meant to garner votes. While I still believe that to be true, I also believe that the Presidential debate is a great exemplar of the Lanham article and how economics of attention work. At least in the sense of the Presidential election.
The Big Reason the Lanham article fits so well with the debate is because "truth," as we would understand it, is fairly meaningless. The facts are play-things to both Romney and Obama. Indeed, they use information to try and focus attention on themselves. Likewise, the machine-gun rhythm of switching topics, buffering one's accomplishments, and finally attacking the opposition acts as attention traps -- as described by Lanham -- that keep people from looking deeper into the argument the speaker is making.
This really grinds my gears.
After observing that triumvirate of
logos,
pathos, and
ethos, I liked the idea of focusing on
logos. For myself, logic trumps blind belief any day. The President and candidate Romney do not subscribe to this idea however.
Interestingly, it seems as though the media is perhaps picking up the slack. Fact-checking has become much more popular and ubiquitous than what I've seen thus far. Though, admittedly, my experience with politicians and their fact-checkers is limited, at best. Fact-checking in itself operates similar to those art critics and gangrenous professors Lanham mentioned. They try to "look through" that which is being displayed.
The candidates however, only want the public to "look at" what they're saying. Of course, this isn't really the candidates' fault. It is the nature of the beast, the beast being Democracy in this case, that essentially makes it a giant popularity contest. It's like an exploded version of the archetypal Prom King and Queen. The football team captain and the most popular cheerleader (do cheerleaders have captains?) winning both positions, not because they deserve it, but because a majority of students like them.
Is that bad? Probably. Is there a better alternative? Doubtful. At least, one that works well and that we can all agree upon.
I don't think my idea of the candidates wrestling each other during the debate would go over very well.
